British Army Cuts Down on MBTs

Well, CR2 is horribly obsolete (two piece 120mm), and it looks like they have no desire to upgrade such. Not that I blame them; the CR2 is obsolete, no matter how much armor is on the turret.

They should just buy M1s from the US when they realize they need a modern MBT.

>>32382179

Why not replace the Challenger 2's gun? The tank itself isn't obsolete; it's had the least incidents in terms of armor penetration and disabled vehicles.

the tanks won't be scrapped, they'll be kept in depots as a reserve and can be bought back into service relatively quickly

If they know what is good for them they will buy some tanks from the German-French MBT project .

>>32382518
>it's had the least incidents in terms of armor penetration and disabled vehicles.
Nope, sorry Britcuck that's the leopard. Might as well repace the shitty engine too.

>>32383064
130mm, right?

>>32382518
>it's had the least incidents in terms of armor penetration and disabled vehicles.

i bet if they actually deployed some we would start seeing "incidents"

>>32383159
That was a Rheinmetall project to upgrade actual MBT tanks.

The new MBT will mostlikely get something else.

I'll be interested to see the force structure with the Ajax vehicles. The Ajax vehicles are far far heavier than the CVR(T) family they are replacing. Once they start replacing Warrior turrets with CTA 40 turrets I expect we'll start to see Challenger 2 + Ajax + Warrior mechanised formations.

I'll be intersted to see how they perform. The CTA 40 gun seems like it can take on anything short of an MBT.

>>32382138

>experimental group
>to trial
>All MBTs get kept at force ready position in storage anyway

Nothing to see here. Over-reported, as usual. The only unusual thing is that it's the normally reliable Janes using buzzwords this time and missing out the important fact that this is just to trial a new structure, with no confirmation they'll stick to it given it passes by the next SDSR in the process.

File: 40mmCTASinfographi.jpg (1MB, 2000x1414px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1414px

>>32383309

Pic related, 40mm Cased Telescoped gun

>>32382138
It's just another case of a modern military choosing to mothball things it doesn't need at this moment in time. Same thing happened in Germany with the Gepards, and they were swiftly brought back in to service once the threat environment dictated that they may be necessary. Bongs will still have a solid 200 MBTs in active service.

>>32383123
>>32383191

Compare the number of CH2 deployed vs the number of Leopard 2 deployed in combat, you'll be shocked.

>>32383123
That's because the Leo 2 has never been seen outside of Kosovo. The C2 has followed the Abrams everywhere.

>>32383367

Well, they were in Afgan, but in very small numbers.

File: b23[1].png (473KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x706px

>>32382179
>(two piece 120mm)
>>32383013
>they'll be kept in depots as a reserve

Literally T-72 tier

>>32383064
>German-French MBT project

I can guarantee this will not lead to a production vehicle and instead will spawn two different designs.

File: 1481642478492.jpg (110KB, 633x710px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 633x710px

>>32383123
>Nope, sorry Britcuck that's the leopard.
>this is what people actually believe

Fucking kek oh how I'm laughing

Leopard 2 is literally the shittest fucking tank NATO has to offer. It sees combat for the first time and already lost 3 (T H R E E) tanks.

File: 1441360210950.png (27KB, 469x462px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 469x462px

>>32382179
>modern MBT
>Abrams

>>32383667
FUck off T-14 "HOMOERATA" faggot

File: 1462509745858.webm (900KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 854x480px

>>32382179
>two piece 120mm

>>32383671
>he actually thinks the Abrams tank is "modern"

So, by your argument, the T-80 and T-90\90A is modern also? The CH2 is "newer" than the fucking Abrams tank is.

>>32383666
>didn't lost a single tank

>>32383666
>what is propoganda

>>32383676
What's your definition of modern?

>>32383676
>A Vehicle designed to be modular and constantly upgrade able in armour, ammo, power pack, FCS etc, and is constantly upgraded to modern and future standards Isn't modern because the design itself is older than the design of X

british """"""""""""army""""""""""""""

>>32383666
Where and when is this and what happened?

>>32383666
Which MBT can survive ATGM to the side of the turret?

>>32383309
>Ajax
>design light tank without ATGM
>because we have Challenger with 120mm and tea tables
>retire Challenger
Good job, britbongs.

>>32383123
>cuck
Ahhh yes very good

File: 142874047.jpg (1006KB, 2444x2052px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 2444x2052px

>>32383506
>Literally T-72 tier
They even have same rubber sheets ghetto armor.

>>32383801
I can't read polack but it says Chieftain there not Challenger.

>>32383806
Challenger has same layout of armor modules. Quacks like a duck.

>>32383812
>Challenger has same layout of armor modules.

lel

Lots of people talking about something they know nothing about in this thread.

Britfag soldier here, in a Royal Armoured Corp Regiment (Not stating which, fuck you).

I can categorically state that the CH2 has not deployed to Afghan (no role, no manouverability) and whilst there are a couple in theatre, they don't actually deploy out on operations.

In Iraq, yes, there were CH2 there, however from about 2006 onwards, they had no deployment role either (ground not suitable) and the last time I recall seeing CH2 operationally deployed was in Iraq in 2007 when they were on static point duty for a logistics movement through Basrah.

They have not been put under duress or put into proper armed conflict since, well, fucked if I know.

Hence, why they have such a low incident rate.

I can however, state that the fucking things keep breaking down, spend most of their time in the hangars with the engine stripped out, and are generally a pain in the arse.

Then again, so is CVR(T) which is why in Afghan we used Jackals.

The British armoured fleet is fucked. Both age wise and condition wise, and they are simply constant maintenance whores, breaking down far too easily.

The day we actually fight against tanks again, I'll just go to the armoury and grab a Javelin.

File: 142874047.jpg (3MB, 4344x4360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4344x4360px

>>32383818
>i have never seen Challenger the post

File: 1479532794881.jpg (589KB, 1560x1020px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1560x1020px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour
>Other names informally given to Chobham Armour include "Burlington" "Dorchester." and ghetto shit.

>>32383857
>i think because things look the same they are the same.

>>32383666
So I looked this up.
There is literally ZERO proof, everything that exists is a blurry mess and not even a single thing is confirmed. Apprently some random Turk said a single A4 got hit twice and the crew survived. If this is your "argument" you might want to up your game.

>>32383351
>solid 200
Which is still a joke for a country the size of the UK.

>>32383790

Ajax is not a light tank. It is a family of light armoured vehicles.

>>32383850
>The day we actually fight against tanks again, I'll just go to the armoury and grab a Javelin.

Lol you'd rather have at max, 2km range?

>>32383850
I thought the same thing desu
The thing is based on a fucking chieftain god knows why we haven't just fucking dumped them
Still they have been in some combat I.E. up against an rpg 29 which has destroyed Abrams and leopards alike

>>32383879

Look at the UK. It is an island, not a landmass. Spending priority has to be elsewhere.

>>32383895
>Still they have been in some combat I.E. up against an rpg 29 which has destroyed Abrams and leopards alike
What the fuck are you talking about

>>32383888
>Ajax is not a light tank. It is a family of light armoured vehicles.
After canning of Challenger Ajax would be crammed in the tank role. Britbongs would object this with all might, calling its by obscure names like "SCOUT SV" but it will not change the substance.

>>32383912

He's talking about the pen that happened underneath the tank on a lightly protected part (now protected) by a rpg-29. Took the drivers three toes.

>>32382138
>deleting 1/3 of your tank strength
>56 tanks gone
What the fuck Britain.

>>32383937
>which has destroyed Abrams and leopards alike
>leopards
And the proof is where?

What role do you think that the MBT plays in counterinsurgency warfare?

I do not see a loss of tanks as a big deal. People will bring up deterrence to Russia as UK is part of NATO, but how much deterrence does one less regiment make?

>>32383930

And what basis do you assert that a vehicle with a 40mm gun (a very good 40mm gun) would be used in such a role?

>>32383877
You're an idiot

There's videos, webms and pics up and around everywhere showing ATGMs hitting two leopard 2's. Both have fire shooting out of the commanders hatch and gunners

>this much denial in a thread
Fucking kek. /k/ is doomed to be overrun by underage, asshurt faggots

Jesus fuck I wish /k/ had ID tags to easily point out the fucking samefagging.

>>32383955
>>There's videos, webms and pics up
Like where?

>>32383945

I have only the explanation for the challenger tank, not the others.

>>32383942

The tanks aren't gone, they're being kept (as already stated) in their exact readiness state, but regiment that typically equipped with them is (as stated) trialing Ajax.

File: 1457515467640.png (87KB, 321x308px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 321x308px

>>32383723
>he thinks genuine pictures of leopard 2's going up in flames is propaganda

>>32383812
>Challenger has same layout of armor modules

You can't be more wrong.

>>32383974
>genuine pictures
Of what? A video? Where is the video?

>>32383948
how else will you liberate ghettos/london occupied by muslims if you don't have tanks?

>>32383967
Didn't save the webm but here's an album

imgur.com/a/krKBU

>>32383988
The same way you'd liberate ghetto's occupied by niggers and spics in California, Detroit, New York etc etc without tanks.

Bringing in tanks into an urban environment is the dumbest fucking thing you can do, /pol/. Now fuck off.

>>32384019
niggers and spics don't have AK's & RPG's & IED's

retard

Tanks are bad in cities is a dumb fucking meme btw

File: 1443713143726.jpg (36KB, 356x374px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 356x374px

>>32382138
>another superiority complex burger\slavboo making an anti-bong hate thread

Oh, gee. What a surprise. Sure enticed me into giving you (you)'s there, anon. How can anyone else ever compete.

File: 1460302529899.gif (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>32384033
>Tanks are bad in cities is a dumb fucking meme btw

Oh, I see you're not actually baiting, but you're genuinely this fucking retarded. Opinion discared and thrown out the window along with your argument.

>>>/reddit/ is that way, champ. Stay there, because you need to be 18+ to post here.

>>32384055
ur a fking idiot

>>32384033
>niggers and spics don't have AK's

lol

>>32384010
I found two videos on youtube and a webm(which is from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-DUO86yzEY) in the archives. You can literally not see anything in the first one and the second one doesn't show anything that would allow one to confirm the destruction, it is literally composed of two sill images, wow.
That album you linked is blank and doesn't have any images for me, maybe that's my problem and I just can't see them.
There are images of a video I haven't found https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/32311240/
but these clearly do not confirm anything. Where are the three destroyed leopards?

>>32382518
They tried putting a Rheinmetal smoothbore 122mm on it, but it would require a complete turret cage overhaul including ammunition storage.

>>32383340
The Hell? That's weird, but interesting.

>>32384078
We won't know until better footage is released or until the Turkish government admits that three Leopards have been destroyed.

But from the current shown images, it's a fair and easy assumption to start claiming that these tanks are destroyed. One of the images linked in this thread already show columns of fire shooting out of the commanders hatches, and the images on the imgur album shows flames coming out of the tank itself. The tank infront of the one burning up is charred black and isn't mobile, neither has the turret moved. It takes a while for kornet\fagot ATGMs to travel, not to mention load again. Again, to assume that the crew is injured\dead, is a fair assumption.

>>32383340

If budget allowed it, I'd place that on the Type 31.

>>32384078
Unfortunately, I tried to find the video on jewtube, but it's been deleted and removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMWFzolO4LY The link, if anyone has any fancy software\a website where you can preview deleted videos.

>>32383900
And yet it's part of NATO. In case of ear it's expected to field a land army.
Hell, since 1914 it's been obvious that being an island doesn't mean they don't need an army if they are to be taken seriously.
The real problem is that spending priority is on the nanny state and refugees, not the military. When even Kuwait, with a population less than 5 mil, fields a tank force nearly double the size, Britain's force looks pretty pathetic by comparison.

>>32384180
>Britain literally spending any money on rapefugees or even wanting them in the country

I don't understand this meme. The UK is probably the only country in the EU who actively apposes Merkel's "freedom to help" policy for the refugees. It's also the only EY member with the absolute fewest number of refugee intakes.

>>32383955
>/k/ is doomed to be overrun by underage, asshurt faggots
It's already like that, and has been for quite a long time. 90% kiddos and tryhards, 9% amateurs, 1% experts who actually know what they're talking about (like Oppen).

>>32384055
Not that guy, but when adequately supported by infantry, tanks are very effective even in cities. See WW2, Lebanon, GW1+2, and basically any conflict in which tanks in cities were adequately supported.
The problem is that UNSUPPORTED tanks in cities are toast, and many commanders have failed on that exact point.

>>32383949
Because role of the tank exists and it would be filled by vehicle most suited for this role. In the absence of Chally it would be Ajax.

Reminder - all tanks are obsolete.

Insurgents have buttloads of ATGMs and big states will fiels autonomous ai controlled munitions.

>>32384198
The problem is it has quite a few, and you avoided themain point- nanny state instead of military funding.

>>32384198
Because people here are idiots.

>>32384235
Tell that to the Americans, Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Israelis and every other country with a powerful military, cause they don't seem to have gotten the memo.
Or maybe you're just a baiting moron.

>>32384237
>nanny state instead of military funding.
But the UK has the highest military funding in Europe.

File: 14563147677897.jpg (610KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1600x1200px

>>32384235
>Reminder - all tanks without APS are obsolete.
Fixed. Burgers would try to object this.

>>32384251
All of them plan to roboticise their tanks which is just the first step. The future belongs to mass produced autonomous suicide drones, think of a swarm of 10 million of them flying just above Baghdad.

>>32384279
>think of a swarm of 10 million of them flying just above Baghdad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO-VpNxGRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXw9SqnXqZQ

>>32384180

Right, but the UK is never going to be invaded, and the nearest allies it would have to support are on the Eastern frontier of Europe like Poland, and the Baltic states. What it needs are forces that can be deployed rapidly when needed.

Kuwait has tanks because it has experience of shitty neighbours occupying the entire country within living memory and wants to be able to defend itself.

>>32382138

>ITT: /k/ doesn't understand what the fuck "experimental trials" are

>>32384323
Deployed with what?
>muh power projekshuuun
What power?
UK is fucking useless, between underfunded RAF, BA and RN whose destroyers seem to have worse engines than Admiral Kuz. Maybe it's time to face reality. British military after Cold War was gutted beyond repair. UK is no longer a major power, militarily speaking. And don't post graphs from shitty websites.

>>32384373

> whose destroyers seem to have worse engines than Admiral Kuz.

Naiz bait, enjoy your (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You)

>>32384180

Which it can field. The land component contribution is one of the many parts of NATO that a nation can add value, but it is only that. A component.

>>32384230
>Because role of the tank exists and it would be filled by vehicle most suited for this role. In the absence of Chally it would be Ajax.

But the Chally is not absent, it would/will work alongside side Ajax. It will not be charing into the Rhine itself in an anti-tank role.

>>32384373

Christ it's impossible to not read this post in the desperate voice that a pig-squeal baby would use.

>>32383945
Fuck me guys I like the Leo 2 as well but fuck off with this proofs shit

>>32384033
Uhh China sold RPGs and aks to I think LA gangs in the 90s, and Mexican arsenals leak more than the DNC. So I'd bet they have more AT than we'd like to believe. Also tanks are shit in built up terrain, and I'll take decades of evidence before a fag on the internet

>>32383367
>>32383383

Turks used them in Syria (or close to the border, not sure) a week ago or something.

>>32383672
>Powder charges laying around in the crew compartment.

>>32384727
they lost 3 so far.

two gulf wars and the occupation of iraq and afghanistan for years have seen exactly one penetration of a CH2 and only one vehicle lost and that was to one of the most unlucky friendly fire incidents in recent history

>>32382138
they are converting a tan regiment to a new vehicle to trial it as a rapid deployment force, the other 2 regiments remain and the tans from the converting regiment will be kept in depot, no tank is being scrapped, and should the geopolitical situation seem to require it the UK could have more tanks than currently deployed back in service pretty damn quickly

>>32382138
>the British Army lose one of its three Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) regiments.
I feel really bad for them. There'll be lads in there who love tanks, and joined to use tanks, and they just got hard cucked and now they'll have to train with the Ajax which looks like a tank but it's not a tank.

>>32384373

>>32383888

A 2km range multiplied by however far your AT section can insert itself. I can guarantee you, a shit sight further than a tank could.

You forget, a tank is a huge fucking bullet / missile magnet.

Two men on the ground moving across the terrain as trained to, and then digging in and waiting from a hide for your armour to role past has far greater survivability.

>>32384279
>All of them plan to roboticise their tanks
I know for a fact that the Israelis aren't. The current planning for the vehicle to replace the Merkava is manned.

>>32383667

It's as modern as anything else out there in the newest iteration

The only thing it lacks is APS

Sights, armor, gun, are all top tier

>>32385517
>waiting from a hide for your armour to role past
Which means you give up any offensive capability. ATGMs are the modern equivalent to anti tank guns- they can be used to hold terrain, but not take it.

>>32385939
>they can be used to hold terrain, but not take it.
They can with bounding overwatch leapfrogging. But this is sloooooooooooooooow.

>>32385517
>far greater survivability
This is also WRONG.
infantry are FAR more vulnerable. A tank can survive a hit from a high caliber ATGM or tank gun, whereas infantry are vulnerable to everything 5.56 up. In any peer conflict, all good ATGM positions are going to be liberally covered in artillery and mortar fire, with 125mm HEF against detected launches. ATGM teams are generally given the lowest survivability in any war assesment as their job is to go up against formations of large powerful war machines.
And now, when even the low end of the Russian fleet has FLIR, hiding long enough to get a good shot off is much harder, as is surviving the counterfire following a launch.

>>32383888
>Lol you'd rather have at max, 2km range?
Currently produced Javelin Block 1 missile has 4 km range though it is not "official".

>>32383666
>>32383955
>Hey guys, you dont know about this right? Right?
>Let me shill here a bit against western tanks
>You are an idiot if you dont believe my lies
>Gee people who acutally followed this case and know i just talk shit, sure are erm...."butthurt"
That smelly smell of vatnik.
>inb4 i am not a vatnik, it doesnt matter that i constantly get called vatnik

>>32385974
>bounding overwatch leapfrogging
>get up to drag heavy af ATGM to next hill
>get mortar fire rained down on you because the enemy has spotters
>enemy spotters stay hidden from sight so overwatch doesn't help
Yeah no. There's a limit to the usefulness of bounding overwatch, and being the single most vulnerable and least mobile unit on the battlefield doesn't help.

File: 1470369263763.gif (98KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 250x250px

>>32386043
>Replies to trips and dubs
>Doesn't check them

>>32386012
>FLIR, hiding long enough to get a good shot off is much harder, as is surviving the counterfire following a launch.
Will burgers ever learn?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEdfCw0nsoM

>>32386064
You might confuse /k/ with a subboard that actually cares about this, contradicting shitposting hives like /b/, /pol/,...

>>32382518
>>32382179

Everyone complains about the gun on CR2, but nobody knows what they're on about.

CR2 gun is more accurate than the L55 smoothbore and actually penetrates better at ranges less than 2km with the DU rounds, and penetrates better at ranges above 2km with the new tungsten l28.

CR2 is having a new refurb to shave off 10T (mostly from its ECM/comms/data/comps/calcs/optics), and they're looking at uprated engines too

>>32386064
>>>/b/

>>32386075
>implying I'm a burger
Anyway, any ATGM launch results in a large thermal signature. With FLIR, this lights up the gunner's sight so return fire is VERY quick. Any older ATGM (SACLOS) means the laucher can't move, and therefore will be destroyed. Modern F&F are a small portion of the arsenal, and the Javelin has limited range.

File: 1480225513956.jpg (153KB, 565x659px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 565x659px

>>32386101
> forgets image

>>32386101
>CR2 gun is more accurate than the L55 smoothbore and actually penetrates better at ranges less than 2km with the DU rounds, and penetrates better at ranges above 2km with the new tungsten l28.
>This what britbongs believe
Lanz-Odermatt equation estimations give brit gun barely 400mm of RHA penetration.

>>32386114
Image has no sources.
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/
>to be onest - In article I had used two russian sources :-) couse they have the same metodology:
And russian table doesn't even state penetrator sizes of these rounds. It is not even speculation.

>>32386284
740mm on DU rounds from L30A1
760mm on DM53 rounds from l55
780mm on L28A1 rounds from L30A1

All at 2km

The reason why in trails the smoothbore had a good start was that they were long range penetration trails, they then found the accuracy was lacking and close range pen was utter shite.

The muzzle energy of the CHARM3 round at muzzle is about 40% more than L55/DM53

>>32386284
cool read though

>Brits operating with fantasy stats

What a surprise!

>>32386284
>give brit gun barely 400mm of RHA penetration

This obviously isn't true.

File: 1421775987198.png (6KB, 369x311px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 369x311px

>>32386361

>>32386368
> your guns better than mine and i cant accept that

>>32386284
>Lanz-Odermatt equation estimations give brit gun barely 400mm of RHA penetration


Conqueror had more than 400mm. Don't be a retard.

CHARM 3 is a heavier projectile than its US and german equivalents.

A gun so good that even the Brits wanted to replace it with something worse because reasons.

>>32386419
cheaper ammo, allied supply chains.

It got so bad the REME ended up CNC'ing the tungsten training rounds for a while

>>32386419
The only reason replacement was considered is because a whole replacement for CR2 was considered. Someone pointed out just replacing the turret and gun, which was studied. Then, the obvious answer was returned, which was something along the lines of "turret and gun is 2/3 of the cost of a tank" and now we're at the point we are today.

>>32386368
They are pretty annoying.

There are two nations which use rifled guns

UK and India. Do you want to be part of that elite club?

>>32386445
It's not the British who make stupid claims that the CR2 main gun has the power of something designed in the 1950s.

>>32386461
There are two nations which have lost wars in Vietnam

France and USA. Do you want to be part of that elite club?

>>32386481
At the time when both nations used rifled tank guns.

>>32386505
rekt

>>32386407
>>32386407
>This obviously isn't true.
>when the propaganda meets real life

>>32386470
Have fun with you two-piece stubby "penetrator"
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/l27-120mm-apfsds-round-charm-3

>There are people on /k/ who still don't realise that the "L30 does better than X" poster is a reverse bait trying to get hate on British things on /k/

>>32387513
>http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/l27-120mm-apfsds-round-charm-3

Okay, am I supposed to read\find something specific in this link? The only thing I can find, of note, to do with this thread, is the weight of the round.

>>32387791
If you don't know what to seek you should not talk about rounds but only listen.

File: Girls.jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

>>32384055
>hasn't read the US Army study

>>32383778
Abrams

>>32388807
Even a 1960's AT-2 will penetrate the side of an Abrams, try again, but try harder.

File: tumblr_mg3sn0EyE91s2ocj0o1_500.gif (386KB, 490x498px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 490x498px

>>32382179
dude as an american even i know this is shitposting

>>32389601
The rear where the engine is perhaps, it won't go through the turret sides or the forward half of the hull/skirts.

>>32389735
The only part that is shitposting is the claim that there is no intent to upgrade Challenger 2's.

File: broken down piece of crap.jpg (182KB, 1200x808px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1200x808px

>>32383516
>I can guarantee this will not lead to a production vehicle and instead will spawn two different designs.
Gee, I wonder which of the partners will lead to the project failing...

File: 1462655874689.jpg (576KB, 2552x2180px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2552x2180px

>>32389900
Are you sure you aren't underestimating ATGM's?
Even the turret side is not likely to give much more than five hundred millimeters of RHA equivalent protection against HEAT, and the hull side is far less than that because it lacks composite armor altogether.

>>32387738
Everybody says that... but it's not real. How does it even make sense?

File: Convertible_1.jpg (140KB, 1170x777px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1170x777px

>>32390432
I think you are grossly overestimating an AT-2, and both the hull sides and skirt along the forward half of an Abrams are a composite.

It's ok American soldiers will protect us.

>>32383778
Merkava

Trophy shits on ATGM.

>>32391429
jesus christ nigger, listen to yourself

File: L27 CHARM 3.jpg (11KB, 150x323px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 150x323px

>>32386407
>CHARM 3 is a heavier projectile than its US and german equivalents.

The L27A1 CHARM 3 penetrator together with its sabot weighs 10.1 kg. The mass of the penetrator alone is 4.9 kg.

>>32393456
>>32386361
>>32386284
>>32386114
>all these people posting "facts and figures"

>all of them wrong

>people who actually have access to the documentation will never post the figures.
for opsec.

>>32384262
You aren't spending it properly then because by all information we have British military is a joke and only deluded Britsharias claim otherwise.

>>32393495
>being this mad you got btfo by multiple people

Sad!

>>32393507
More likely you have no concept of what makes an effective fighting force in the 21st century.

>Blue water navy
>Independant military satellite network
>world leading intelligence services
>Nucear deterrent
>huge domestic defence industry
>huge effort put into skills retention irrespective of troop / platform numbers
>world leading training and facilities


b b but Germany has more tanks so would easily win r r r ight?

>>32393509
>hurr forums are accurate sources for classified military intelegence, especially if I ignore the contradicting blogs and use these low infographics instead.

This is literally you.

Provide an official or authoritative source on modern tank penetration and armour capabilities. You can't, for exactly the same reason you're getting your information from irrelevant defence forums.

>>32383340
>For armored targets such as tanks.

Seems a bad idea to take on tanks with a 40mm. Even if it is all new and fancy.

>>32393525
>muh 21st century evolved 4D combat power projection threat asessment memes
Yep, they are this deluded. And no Germany is absolute shit too.
Point is Britain is a second-rate power. No matter how much you PR it.
For example in a hypothetical conflict with Russia or China or even Iran, your contribution would be literally nothing.
You have little to deploy and what you can deploy is a joke.

>>32393544
Scimitars took out several T62' from the front using SABOT rounds in their 30mm RARDEN cannons during the Gulf War.

It won't be tasked with fighting tanks obviously, but there no harm in having something prickly to shoot back with.

That being said, repeated autocannon strikes on the outside of your hull is probably one of the more disorientating things a tank crew will experience. Better hope your optics survive.

File: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (458KB, 1501x970px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1501x970px

>>32393548
>For example in a hypothetical conflict with Russia or China or even Iran, your contribution would be literally nothing.

Prove it.

The UK is geared for soft warfare and force projection, something we have been doing very well for decades the US is the only nation that does it better.

Russia, China, India, France, Turkey ect are barely able to move their forces to a combat theatre away from their own boarders, i'd love to see how they would fight a war there.

You need to come to terms with the fact that the UK is a major power. And even if you can't come to terms with it - i'm not fussed, because I know its a fact. suck it up and post some more dumb shit.

>>32393592
>barely able to move out of their country
>bombing people in Syria for several months
Are you living under a rock?
Also, notice how Russians don't give a fuck about your stance on anything. They don't respect you because there's nothing to respect. UK as whole is a joke.

>>32393606
>m-memes!

Love how you didn't answer the point.

>>32393618
Meme response invites meme response. UK is a big fat joke.

File: Hermes.jpg (926KB, 3413x2358px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 3413x2358px

>>32393606
>bombing people in Syria for several months

>thinks syria is a long way for russia to go

>even then they have to use non Russian air bases

>can barely support their carrier in a deployment to the MEDITERANIAN

>even then their carriers aircraft have to operate from land because of their shit carrier

>lost 20% of their combat jets by failed carrier landings

yeah Russia is doing great... let me know when you travel to the other side of the world to fight a war.

>>32393651
When did UK do that?
>inb4 Falklands
34 years ago.

>>32393537
I will take these sources over your asssource every time.

>>32393664
When did the UK do what the Russians are currently doing?

About five months ago.

File: e840a7c5e4719edb5bad631c34ba9e88.jpg (509KB, 2048x1258px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2048x1258px

>>32393664

Falklands, GW1, Yugoslav Wars(further from the UK than Syria is from Russia) Afganistan, GW2, Libya, Syria. And then there's the huge number of special operations missions around the world such as operation Barras, and then there's all the black missions we won't find out about.

Also you didn't answer my question, how will the nations you mentioned get to a battlefield away from their borders? with their lack of blue water navy, lack of strategic airlift or lack of international basing and allies?

File: 1463693605707.png (418KB, 540x675px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 540x675px

>>32393641
>still can't provide facts for his argument
>resorts to memes
>can't accept the fact that he's been btfo'd

Fucking kek. Only joke here is you, anon. Jesus fuck

>>32393702
Send a token force to pretend they're fighting? Yeah, impressive. But Russians aren't doing that.
>>32393704
>lack of strategic airlift capability
>Russia
Are you retarded, honestly? Did Paki cock scramble your brain?
And besides Falklands British formed just a small irrelevant contigent, playing second fiddle to Americans.
Also you might want to check your blue-water navy, it seems they can't deploy properly due to shitty engines.

>>32393704
>Also you didn't answer my question, how will the nations you mentioned get to a battlefield away from their borders?
France alone has far more oversea military presence than the UK. Only thing they are lacking in is strategic airlift.

>>32393709
You're claiming UK is a "major power", not me. It's up to you to show some proof of that. Like for example having a proper SAM system.

>>32393727
>France alone has far more oversea military presence than the UK.

So now we're going to lie?

>>32393727
B-but UK can deploy 50 men to pretend they're fighting anywhere in the world, Russians and Chinese are scared shitless.

>>32393728
>having a proper SAM system.

Rapier isn't a proper SAM system? So what is, in your eyes?

>>32393738
Prove me wrong.

>>32393728
>You're claiming UK is a "major power", not me. It's up to you to show some proof of that.

Easy.

Kirchberger, Sarah (23 Jun 2015). Assessing China's Naval Power: Technological Innovation, Economic Constraints, and Strategic Implications. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 9783662471272.

http://comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Report_Final-published.pdf

>>32393724
>And besides Falklands British formed just a small irrelevant contigent, playing second fiddle to Americans.

Might want to read a book.

>Also you might want to check your blue-water navy, it seems they can't deploy properly due to shitty engines.

A type 45 has never had to return to port or cancel a deployment because of a propulsion or power failure. It's using the most advanced propulsion afoat, on par with Zumwalt (we got ours to work though).

Whereas the Russian navy needs ocean going tugs to follow its carrier around on its 5th deployment in what 25 years?

Russia would kill to have access to a network of reliable ships like the RFA.

Russia has a pathetic weight of airlift compared to its conventional forces. The UK's ratio is vastly superior.

>>32393744
>Rapier
>5000m flight ceiling

>>32393745

To state that one thing is superior you have to prove it yourself.

So I suppose you're happy to share the numbers of both UK personal and French personal deployed?

>>32393745
Gladly.

France -
>French Guiana
>French Polynesia
>Martinique
>New Caledonia
>Réunion

British -
>Ascension Islands
>Bahrain
>Belize
>Diego Garcia
>Brunei
>Canada
>Cyprus
>Falklands
>Germany
>Gibraltar
>Kenya
>Nepal
>Singapore
>Qatar
>Bermuda
>Montserrat

And those are from Wikipedia alone.

>>32393753

Yes, and? That's still a "proper" SAM.

Unless of course, you happen to have an expert on hand to say what counts as a "proper" SAM or not.

>>32393761
don't forget all the commonwealth countries who's ports we use.

And the overseas territories we let us US use.

>>32393750
>UK's ratio is way superior
So if Russians can airlift a division and British could airlift a battalion at best, that means British are superior in real life?
Troll harder.
>>32393748
>being so pathetic you scour literature in the hope of someone mentioning your country as a "major power"
In any case, as I said, notice how Russians or anyone don't really give a fuck about what UK thinks about something.
I mean Russians consider you so weak they literally assasinate people in UK without thinking twice.

File: RAF-USMC F35 3.jpg (90KB, 2048x1134px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 2048x1134px

>>32393753
>having such a pathetic air force that you know you won't have air superiority in a modern war

High altitude long range SAM's are for ships and Soviets.

>this guy is getting BTFO on every post and its hilarious.

tell us what country you're from, i want to make a thread and tear into them - but when i do it I'll post facts.

File: opex1.jpg (238KB, 1071x920px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1071x920px

>>32393761
>And those are from Wikipedia alone.
Bwahaha.
It's funny how this doesn't count foreign deployments.

File: 145834614416745.jpg (561KB, 1938x2156px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1938x2156px

>>32393769
>"proper" SAM or not.
Can hit plane at cruise altitude = proper SAM.

File: azVDmmb_700b_v2.jpg (137KB, 516x1599px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 516x1599px

>>32393780

I like it how you disregard / completely ignore things that don't agree with you.

Russian nationalist to the core.

>>32393780
Moving the goalposts again, I see.

>>32393793

Find me a single credible source that states that for something to be considered a SAM, it must be able to hit at 20000-30000.

>>32393791
You realise that picture is not proving your point? have you even looked at the UK's bases and operations overseas?

France has no blue water navy, and next to no international military bases that would help their navy.

>>32393810
>considered a SAM
I see what you did there.

>>32393796
That image is funny. You really think we give a fuck what you think of us?
We just use propaganda to confuse your masses. The fact your own media keeps lying to them too helps us a lot, they swallow our propaganda nicely.
Thanks for weakening EU :^)

>>32393824
>France has no blue water navy
(you)
>and next to no international military bases that would help their navy
They have those in pretty much every sea, including the Persian gulf. What are you smoking?

>>32393827

Why? You're saying that. By calling something not "proper", you are saying that it is not what it is named/labelled.

>>32393834
>You really think we give a fuck what you think of us

We don't think about you at all. You're the one sprouting your superiority complex bullshit there, champ.

>>32393834

Not an argument, neither a response to the point.

File: 1457244028528.png (15KB, 379x372px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 379x372px

>>32393761
>france actually has a base called FAG

You can't make this shit up

>>32393842
Franche has THREEE (3) oilers.

zero solid support ships, zero hospital ships, zero roll on roll off ships, Zero submarine tenders, Zero container ships.

>They have those in pretty much every sea, including the Persian gulf

Having an overseas 'base' on a sea is not the same has having a military port. there are no french major surface combatants operating from non-french ports.

>>32393850
Sure you don't.
>>32393852
I pretty much gave up and now I'm just trolling. What else can you do when you talk to people so deluded they believe "airlift ratio" is a thing and that "muh allies" is an argument when I clearly said that ALONE UK is not a major power and wouldn't be able to fight Russian or Chinese move anywhere without massive US aid.
You also wouldn't be able to protect your own overseas interests either.
Russians for example don't need that, all their strategic interests are near them.
You simply have little to deploy and your conventional forces are rather inferior to Russian forces.
I used SAM system as an example because with Rapier you sure as hell wouldn't be able to deny airspace to RuAF and with the fact RAF wouldn't be able to oppose RuAF either on account of being dwarfed by it if nothing else, you get the situation where your troops are in a slightly better situation than Iraqis in '91.
You're simply incapable of fighting a full-scale conventional conflict on your own today. That's what major powers can do.

File: 1441827666348.png (170KB, 331x319px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 331x319px

>>32393890
>btfo'd so hard he's given up

Brilliant.

>>32393791
wow its fucking nothing.

The UK has forces in 80 countries around the world with tens of thousands based outside of the UK.

The sooner France loses its security council seat the better. Germany, Brasil India and even Pakistan are all better candidates.

>>32393890

So in other words you've ignored everything that has been said to you on the basis that you don't like it? And when asked to proved proofs of your own, you raise something unrelated?

>be russian
>get conscripted
>get raped
>get aids
XAAXAXXAJXAJJX ROSYIA STRONK

>>32393889
UK has 0 (ZERO) operational carrier.

France 1-0 UK
Still more military personnel deployed and actually doing stuff and not getting shitfaced on potato vodka in eastern yurop.

>>32393903
>>32393912
>totally ignore I explained my point later in the post
>proclaim victory
Classic Britsharias.

>>32393909
>The UK has forces in 80 countries
>you actually counted military advisors "deployed" in embassies, of which France has more
>with tens of thousands based outside of the UK
HAHAHAHA.
Total amount of UK troops outside the UK doesn't even reach 10 000.

>>32393890
>RAF wouldn't be able to oppose RuAF either on account of being dwarfed by it

Quality > Quantity

Quantity only counts if it is in usable condition

Usable condition only matters if you have pilots to fly the planes

Pilots only matter if they get to fly more than an hour a week.

Pilots flying from airbases can only deal with targets in range of their air bases.

File: 14563147677897.jpg (92KB, 661x668px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 661x668px

>>32393912

>>32393921
France won't have an active aircraft carrier for another couple years. Again.

CDG sits most of her life in the drydock, awaiting repairs or "overhauls". HMS Ark Royal, Invincible and Illustrious spent nearly all their time out at sea, as will both QE classes once they've been built. The UK will manage 2 (two) larger, more capable carriers than France can maintain one.

>>32393921

UK has 1 commissioned carrier that will beginning her sea in two months time, with the other due to be launched later that year.

So 1-0 not for long. The future looks far, far brighter for the UK compared to France.

>>32393936

Provide the numbers you are using to make that claim like I have already asked for.

>>32393927
>totally ignore I explained my point later in the post
>I've not being doing this the entire thread at all but it's not okay if you do it

lol

Remind me again what the French 5th gen aircraft is?

Perhaps even the name of a project to produce one?

>>32393948
>K has 1 commissioned carrier that will beginning her sea in two months time
With no aircrafts.

>waaah I have more toys in the water doing fuckall
Meanwhile the rest of UK troops are twiddling their thumbs and sipping tea, all the while the armed forces can't even meet their modest recruitment goals and half of the regiments are understaffed. Some of them half-staffed even.

But yeah, you have more boats to send on fancy cruises.

>>32393011
Or try looking at the picture I posted.

>>32393957
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34919954
Do some math.

>>32393560
>Scimitars took out several T62' from the front using SABOT rounds in their 30mm RARDEN cannons during the Gulf War.

A RARDEN doesn't have the penetration with its APDS to do that.

>>32393977
>With no aircrafts.

Incorrect.

And who are you quoting?

>>32393982

You are the one making the claim, support it.

>>32393921

What happens when CdG goes in for refit? where will french planes operate from? What about when it is retired without replacement?

UK aircraft have been bombing all over the middle east from Cyprus. If you're lucky we might let you use our base there.

>Still more military personnel deployed
not even close. p[ost your source

>>32393921
personnel deployed and actually doing stuff and not getting shitfaced on potato vodka in eastern yurop

How did french troops get to mali again?

>>32393936
>Total amount of UK troops outside the UK doesn't even reach 10 000.

500 Afganistan
600 In Bahrain (and building a dock for major surface combatants and carrier operations east of suez)
500-1000 Baltic and eastern Europe.
2,200 Cyprus
1,200 Falklands
4,400 Germany
160 Gibralter
(At least) 1000 in Iraq
200 Kenya

Thats more or less 10,00 right there with zero embassy staff mentioned and i haven't bothered to look up numbers in the remaining 70 odd countries we have troops in.

>>32393991
>Thats more or less 10,00 right there
This is 1 (one) division.

>>32394003

Moving the goal posts again are we?

Besides, that's if that is 1 division, that's one division being sustained in 9 different countries. Much harder to do than sustain one division in one country.

>>32394003
and that is important or relevant...how?

>>32393989
Except it did.

>B Squadron 16/5th QRL and a scimitae from A scimitar from A squadron 16/5th QRL 1991

>The commander of a Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle of D Squadron of the Household Cavalry Regiment, LCoH Flynn was involved in several notable actions against enemy heavy armour. In particular, he located an enemy tank battalion and supporting artillery. Despite coming under heavy Iraqi fire, he called in artillery and air support with devastating accuracy which destroyed the enemy units as effective combat formations.

Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and Military Cross

>>32393982
>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34919954

UK forces overseas deployments are at a low for recent history however. See the table on page two of linked PDF.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/412959/PUBLIC_1425293223.pdf

>>32393991
>500 Afganistan
>600 In Bahrain (and building a dock for major >surface combatants and carrier operations east of suez)
>500-1000 Baltic and eastern Europe.
>2,200 Cyprus
>1,200 Falklands
>4,400 Germany
>160 Gibralter
>(At least) 1000 in Iraq
>200 Kenya

> Germany
Such deployment. Much impressive. Many wow.

>i haven't bothered to look up numbers in the remaining 70 odd countries we have troops in
>counting liaison personnel as deployed troops.

Let's face it. Since the drawdown from Afghanistan and the huge personnel cuts, that is about as much as the UK can manage. And half of those are stationned in an allied country in central Europe a stone throw away from the UK.

File: delicioustears.png (19KB, 888x116px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 888x116px

>>32393936

read it and weep.

>>32394036
post the number of french troops deployed overseas. We've already established they have fewer bases and fewer deployments and no blue water capability.

>>32394036
>Such deployment. Much impressive. Many wow.

Not the point.

>Let's face it. Since the drawdown from Afghanistan and the huge personnel cuts, that is about as much as the UK can manage. And half of those are stationned in an allied country in central Europe a stone throw away from the UK.

Again, not the point. Goal posts moved YET AGAIN.

>>32394050
It's 10800 compared to the UK's current 14000-15000.

>>32394036
>Such deployment. Much impressive. Many wow.

You want to show me what a """deployment""" the French are doing, compared to the bongs? Just by checking online, I could easily say most, if not every single current """deployment""" the French military have is on par with Falklands level threat.

>>32394042
You realize that it adds up all the rotations in a single year, right?
>>32394050
See >>32393791
That's more than 10 000 right there, with a smaller proportion twiddling their thumbs. It doesn't even count troops stationed in european countries.

>>32394070
>Falklands level threat.

France has no strategic airlift, so even a "Falklands level threat" would probably be stretching them too far.

>>32394074
>with a smaller proportion twiddling their thumbs
Literally every French military personnel in those listed bases are currently "twiddling their thumbs" doing literally fucking nothing. As this anon said >>32394070
Compared to the bongs, the French are in a relatively peaceful "deployments", without any actual heated combat. Meanwhile, the bongs are in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I did some quick searching, and I genuienly couldn't find a recorded engagement of French troops in Foreign territory. The French army is currently more engaged on ground operations in their own country than outside.

>>32394070
Sorry, 3500 troops hunting jihadists in the Sahara getting IED'd every other day, not even counting special forces there, is hardly on par with Falklands level threat, unless the sheeps there have AIDS. And for having seen recent AARs there, yeah they are still fighting (and killing) jihadists there.
3000 troops in Iraq and Jordan, including air assets bombing ISIS every day, and even an artillery detachment doing a dozen firemissions a day around Mosul certainly seems shitty compared to drinking German beer I reckon.

And CAR deployment saw crazy shit happening that never got shown on TV.

>>32394105
Is there literally any source of any of this?

Genuinely asking, as I'd like to have a read.

>>32394104
>Literally every French military personnel in those listed bases are currently "twiddling their thumbs" doing literally fucking nothing. As this anon said >>32394070
>Compared to the bongs, the French are in a relatively peaceful "deployments", without any actual heated combat.

The fuck. Last dead in Mali was literally last month.

Please just shut up and admit you have no idea what is actually happening there.
>I did some quick searching, and I genuienly couldn't find a recorded engagement of French troops in Foreign territory
Two simple reasons.
-You suck at quick searching
-French Armed forces typically keep engagements quiet and journalists at arms length. Freeer hands that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zndo4gttEY

>>32394130
Alright, if it's relatively easy to find, source?

>>32394130
>Last dead in Mali was literally last monday

Remind me again what force helped them get there because of France's severe lack of force projection..?

>>32393845
Anon, he's playing the semantics game which means he can't directly refute what you said.
In other words, you won.

>>32394115
You wont find much outside of specialised french blogs.

I, however, literally have an accreditation, being a 1st LT. I personally know a JTAC who went to CAR and ordered a Tiger helicopter strike on a company-strength massing of militias there. I've had briefings on the situation there that is light years away from what is being shown in the media, with one instance of an ERC-90 mowing down about two dozen rebels there completely high as kites who just charged along a street.
Proportionally we had more PTSD cases there than in fucking Afghanistan, and nobody heard a thing.

>>32393989
Lower side and rear hull.

>>32394154
>Remind me again what force helped them get there because of France's severe lack of force projection..?
Better have a lack of force projection than force generation, since we can always borrow or even rent planes.
We are literally the only European country right now that has the capability to form a coherent task force on such short notice.

>>32394182
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf

>>32394164
And I'm 22 regiment who actually killed Osama bin Laden

>>32394182
lmao, no

>>32394182
Thats right, the US is in direct danger of invasion by China because they could borrow or rent planes to get them there.

>>32394115
>>32394144

Not him, as he's been extremely unhelpful and unwilling to share information.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FForces_fran%25C3%25A7aises_hors_de_la_m%25C3%25A9tropole&edit-text=

So I count around 17900 frogs in total (Sangaris operation ended).

So UK vs France on deployment numbers could go either way when you consider bongs 10000+plus 70 other countries deployments.

So the Frog is talking shit, as we're unable to find the exact number of bongs deployed abroad.

However, we do know that the UK has deployed and sustained far larger troop surges compared to France historically.

File: DSC_0028.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>32394193
I'm waiting on those stories m8.
>>32394209
Lmao yes
>>32394214
>being retarded on purpose
And from whom would they get them?
>plus 70 other countries deployments
You really DO want to count those liaison detachments.
The average must be under 10 for fuck's sake.

>However, we do know that the UK has deployed and sustained far larger troop surges compared to France historically.
Historically being the key word, as bong forces have been gutted with major recruitment issues, and right now there's no way they could sustain what they had just a few years ago, not before a few years and a major recruitment drive.

>>32394215
>https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FForces_fran%25C3%25A7aises_hors_de_la_m%25C3%25A9tropole&edit-text=
>no Inherent Resolve operation
Outdated

>>32394310
>>32394332

Claim it outdated if you so wish, but that's the only source I have only been able to find that would put you above the UK's current deployment level. You've been extremely unhelpful, childish even. Throughout this thread you've continually asked to support what you keep claim, but you never do. Not only that, you change the goalposts.

>Historically being the key word, as bong forces have been gutted with major recruitment issues, and right now there's no way they could sustain what they had just a few years ago, not before a few years and a major recruitment drive.

You can keep repeating that if you so wish, but the planning assumptions made after those cuts mark the UK expeditionary capability to be at 30000 troops (to increase to 50000 by 2025), compared to France's own 2013 white paper which marks it at 15000.

>>32394457
>would
*could

>>32394310
>And from whom would they get them?
You realize this is precisely why saying you could borrow/rent force projection assets is retarded, right

You're relying on availability that you have no control over and the political situation. If you're trying to do something that the person you're planning to "rent" from doesn't like, tough shit.

Borrowing RAF assets to get to Mali doesn't mean you've got a robust force projection capability.

>>32394491

If that's the quality of level officers that France is turning out, I'm personally very disappointed.

can't critical thinking into shit and utterly incapable of putting his nationalism aside

>>32394310

>and right now there's no way they could sustain what they had just a few years ago

That'll be why the French haven't done anything like the amount of ops the British have against ISIS then and had to rely on the RAF and USAF to get their vehicles to Mali along with a fuckton of ISTAR support from other nations, right?

File: 1458740771068.jpg (441KB, 2376x2592px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 2376x2592px

>don't know much about armored warfare but the anti-CR2 posters' argument style earmarks them as possible retards

>then they start talking about naval matters and remove all doubt that they are 80 IQ mouthbreathers with a COD kiddy's understanding of naval combat

holy kek my sides weren't ready

also as much I think the French Navy is breddy gud I can't take them seriously when some of their uniforms make them look like twinks sunbathing on a cali beach

>>32394457
>You've been extremely unhelpful, childish even.
Because the level of discourse around here is generally so fucking mature.
>but you never do
Did.
>but the planning assumptions
>planning assumptions
>which marks it at 15000
And we're already pretty much over it.

>>32394491
>You're relying on availability that you have no control over
I do know it's far from ideal. What I know for sure though is that we're the only one in Europe right now who could muster up an expeditionary force and start sending it in 48 hours or less.

The truth of the matter is, we could have done it alone, eventually, but we needed all those forces as fast as possible.
The bongs would have been hard pressed to do the same, not for a lack of planes, but simply lack of reactivity at every level starting from the political.

>>32394528
>That'll be why the French haven't done anything like the amount of ops the British have against ISIS then
>https://airwars.org/data/
Oh boy, such difference.
Except we've also sent artillery there, with talks of sending LRM's too.

>>32394504
>can't critical thinking into shit
Because you said so.
>and utterly incapable of putting his nationalism aside
Oh please, like you're not partaking in the dick measuring contest around here.

>>32394644
>we could have done it alone

Okay, Pierre. Sure thing.

>>32394654
Missing key-word here:
>eventually
But whatever satisfies your feeling of superiority.
The critical element was time.
You can rent aircrafts in the short-term.
You can't rent troops and combat vehicles. And the A-400M is fucking late and still smallish.

>>32394622
Hot

>>32394622

>Cute guy on the left became an ugly woman

why would you ruin yourself like that

>>32394644
>Because the level of discourse around here is generally so fucking mature.

I'm not one representing themselves as a military officer.

>Did.

Right.

This might not be clear to you, but it is certainly clear to ANYONE else who has read the thread.

But sure:
>>32393727
>>32393745
>>32393756
>>32393769
>>32393780
>>32393791
>>32393810
>>32393827
>>32393850
>>32393936
>>32393957
>>32393982
>>32393990
>>32394050
>>32394115
>>32394144

All of these posts related to you not supporting your claims.

>And we're already pretty much over it.

We're not, because the only source that has be provided is "out of date" according to yourself.

>I do know it's far from ideal. What I know for sure though is that we're the only one in Europe right now who could muster up an expeditionary force and start sending it in 48 hours or less.

Again, not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Expeditionary_Force_(Maritime)

>The truth of the matter is, we could have done it alone, eventually, but we needed all those forces as fast as possible.

You're not seriously are you? I'm dumbstruck. How what. We're talking about scale and projection, and you say it doesn't matter because you could do it "eventually"? jesus christ

>The bongs would have been hard pressed to do the same, not for a lack of planes, but simply lack of reactivity at every level starting from the political.

Again, simply baseless claims.

>Because you said so.

No, because you seem to lack some extremely *fundamental* understand about what you're talking about.

>Oh please, like you're not partaking in the dick measuring contest around here.

Again, not the one who qualifies his retardation with being an officer.

File: r4gwrthrthj.jpg (47KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x448px

>>32394644

>Oh boy, such difference.

>He thinks that number of airstrikes is the only thing that matters in a war

Lets just ignore that the UK is providing a huge portion of the intelligence data from ISTAR flights, including 60% of all tactical data in Iraq from Tornado Raptor flights, and that when the whole campaign is looked at, it's been specified that they've been doing "five times" as much as France on the whole.

France's contribution is only 6 Rafale, 6 Mirage, 1 Atlantique, 1 tanker and 1 Sentry in the vast majority of the periods they are active.

The UK's contribution is 10 Reapers, 9 Typhoons, 10 Tornados, 2 C-130, 2 Sentinal ISTAR, 2 Sentry, 2 Voyager tankers, 1 Atlas, 1 C-17, 1 Rivet Joint, 1 Shadow and has perpetual naval presence including 4-5 Sea Kings with ground capable radars and a submarine present should any tomahawks be ever required from them, and thats just the stuff that actually directly contributes to the operation.

That means that not only does the UK have a greater fighter component, they're the only one of the two providing long endurance drone support, wide area ISTAR, EWAR, aerial logistical movement, strategic airlift, and have double the AWACS and aerial refuelling orbits from much larger tankers supporting it.

>B-but muh CdG!

It's not a permenant on station asset, and when it is it's launching from much further distances, the majority of the time this intervention is running, it's not on station and only provides a boost to their strikes when it's actually present to try and make "airstrikes done" not be embarrassingly distant, and hoping that people don't look at the greater picture of what actually constitutes a military operation. Intelligence gathering, logistics, EWAR are all just as important, and France has virtually fuck all of that involved. They're the ones being led by the US and UK when it comes to who are actually controlling the strategy by providing the information needed.

>>32394708

So your idea of deployment careful is "eventually" renting a bunch of civilian aircraft and arriving late to the war.

If "eventually" from that sort of setup counts as "worldwide deployable" then fucking Mongolia can do it.

The point is that you get there on time, in force, from your own immediate access assets. If you're not doing that, then you're not capable of reactive rapid deployment on a worldwide stage. This blurry, non-commital "we'd rent some stuff and get there eventually" is nothing more than a desperate attempt at damage control.

File: doh.jpg (66KB, 228x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 228x640px

>>32394778

>what do you mean, there can be more than one people named "Anonymous"?!


>Again, not true.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Expeditionary_Force_(Maritime)
>navy
Technically true, but... Those ships would have surely been useful in the middle of the FUCKING SAHARA.

>and you say it doesn't matter
Where.
>Again, simply baseless claims.
>Again, not the one who qualifies his retardation with being an officer.
Those are directly from our RETEX, which you won't find online, as well as it can be inferred from a number of foreign sources. And also from personal exchanges with liaison officers.
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-94b0/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-april-may-2013-b2cc/55
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf-2-02-heisbourg-2805

File: kike.jpg (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

>>32383123
>>32383666
>>32383955
>>32383945
>>32383912
>>32383895
The only thing worse than Angela Merkel is the Leopard's armor.

>>32394919
>So your idea of deployment careful is "eventually" renting a bunch of civilian aircraft and arriving late to the war.
No, my idea of deployment is actually having all the troops to deploy recalled and packing inside of 24 hours, with the first special forces on site 5 hours after the announcement, and so far we're the only ones to have demonstrated that capability.
I know perfectly well that we're fucked on the strategic airlift capability, but in that case it didn't matter, because you and others had the planes needed.
It may not be the case in the future.

>>32394981

>No, my idea of deployment is actually having all the troops to deploy recalled and packing inside of 24 hours, with the first special forces on site 5 hours after the announcement, and so far we're the only ones to have demonstrated that capability.

[Citation desperately needed]

>because you and others had the planes needed.

Ah, glad you're admitting that France can't do its own now then.

>It may not be the case in the future.

Given France doesn't have any strategic airlift, and has no plans to purchase any...it will be.

>>32394933

You're fucking retarded. I said all those posts are *related to you*, not they *are you*.

>Where.

Here
>The truth of the matter is, we could have done it alone, eventually, but we needed all those forces as fast as possible.

You hand-waved the issue that you lacked available logistics, but it doesn't matter because you could have done it, in your own words "eventually".

Thank you, myself and others should not have had to ask you this many times for you to support what you are saying.

>http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf-2-02-heisbourg-2805

Gives 404 error.

>https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-94b0/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-april-may-2013-b2cc/55

£336.00

Could you screencap the numbers? Otherwise the links you've given me (although from credible sources) are worthless as I cannot read them.

>>32395000
>and so far we're the only ones to have demonstrated that capability
Which means that
>[Citation desperately needed]
indeed to prove the contrary. When was the last time the UK mustered a 4000 strong force in under a week, with the first elements arriving within the first 48 hours with basically no warning?
>Ah, glad you're admitting that France can't do its own now then.
Remind me last time the UK decided to employ its armed forces unilaterally? I think that was 30 years ago.

>>32395003
>You're fucking retarded. I said all those posts are *related to you*, not they *are you*.
I only needed to see those posts about that SAM discussion of which I took absolutely no part of.


Links got bungled
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-94b0/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-april-may-2013-b2cc/55-2-02-heisbourg-2805

>You hand-waved the issue that you lacked available logistics, but it doesn't matter because you could have done it, in your own words "eventually".

My focus was on "force generation", and you're still here talking about "force projection".

Those are different things.
And, as was effectively demonstrated, if you have allies, you can have stopgap measures for the latter. But allies won't do shit for the former.

>>32395058

>indeed to prove the contrary

Burden of proof if on you. You made the claim that France is "the only ones" to ever have special forces in a deployed area within 5 hours and that no-one else has ever had troops recalled and packing in 24 hours. You specified no time scale. You specified France as "the only ones". It's on YOU to prove this fact, not on others to disprove it.

So please show me some concrete proof that catagorically states that France is the ONLY country, to have ever done that, and please include links as to where you got details on US and UK special forces deployment times especially, and on the specific details that both countries' rapid deployment elements have never accomplished that exact same task which is their specific intent.

>>32395058

>Remind me last time the UK decided to employ its armed forces unilaterally?

Aside from the fact that they're deployed right now, in more broad senses, than France against ISIS? Aside from that it was only very recently that they sent 10,000 men to Afghanistan or 43,000 to Iraq? Aside from Sierra Leonne, or even going back further the Gulf War? Especially the two to Iraq, France hasn't mustered a single deployment on that sort of scale since the Korean War.

The UK deployed itself to those zones. Just because the US happened to be in the same war doesn't mean the UK used them to get there. They were self deployments, on a larger scale.

ANd as was just proven above, France DIDN'T deploy on its own, they needed the USAF and RAF to do it.

>>32395138

I personally wasn't asking about Mali.

But I was asking about sources that the French oversea deployment is higher than the British. You're yet to answer that.

File: M1A1 Turret Side Armor.jpg (459KB, 2456x1808px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2456x1808px

>>32383801
As does the M1s, your point?

>>32395174

You won't get an answer from him on that. Because the moment he starts talking in anything but vague statements, hiding behind unrepresentative numbers and constantly changing goalposts he knows the facts will nail him to the wall about actual force deployment capabilities and equipment.

You only need to look at the French Navy's absolutely pitiful logistics arm to see that, or the French Air Force having no strategic airlift, or the French Army/Air Force having nothing larger than a medium size helicopter.

French shillers live and die by trying to manipulate numbers and meanings, because only by trying to misrepresent things or try to pretent unequal things are equivilent do they have any angle at all. Look at the retard who posts every so often about MUH SPECTRA to try and say Rafale "counts as" a stealth aircraft for example.

Another Britanon here

>>32395058

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Rapid_Reaction_Force

> It was originally intended that JRRF would be able to mount up to two simultaneous operations of up to 15,000 personnel each. A major military exercise called Saif Sareea II was held in Oman in September 2001 to test the deployment of the JRRF

.....

> A Joint Task Force HQ (JTFHQ) would accompany the force to provide local command, which is maintained at 48 hours notice to move.

The 16 Air Assault Brigade more or less would be the primary unit tasked to carry out a land-based intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Air_Assault_Brigade

They actually train alongside the French paras extensively for pretty much the same role.

http://www.army.mod.uk/news/28546.aspx

For what it's worth, the last solo UK intervention was in 2000. There hasn't really been the necessity to intervene in the former British empire in recent years, at least not with the consent of the government anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_intervention_in_the_Sierra_Leone_Civil_War#Operation_Palliser

Honestly this bickering going on in this thread is annoying, considering both countries are actually making strides on preparing for joint intervention without needing the USA. With the UK & French navies, strategic air lift, and overseas bases combined, it is actually a force greater than the sum of its parts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Expeditionary_Force

You may want to look up "Exercise Griffin Strike" which happened this year in the Francophone internet, I'm actually quite impressed that they are making a genuine effort to build beyond basic NATO cooperation. In a few years the UK & France may be able to carry out a Libya style intervention without US support.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-launch-rapid-deployment-exercise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36104343

>>32395152
>
Burden of proof if on you. You made the claim that France is "the only ones" to ever have special forces in a deployed area within 5 hours and that no-one else has ever had troops recalled and packing in 24 hours. You specified no time scale. You specified France as "the only ones". It's on YOU to prove this fact, not on others to disprove it.
I said France was the only one to have demonstrated that capability in recent times.
Meaning France was the only one to have actually done it, and no, that's absolutely not limited to SF.


>Aside from the fact that they're deployed right now, in more broad senses, than France against ISIS?
>Unilaterally
Iraq is your only current deployment, with only air force assets and SF on the ground.
It's already been established here that we have far more boots on the ground in actual operations elsewhere, notably against AQMI, and from what I hear, also going into Libya.
> it was only very recently that they sent 10,000 men to Afghanistan or 43,000 to Iraq
Iraq was 13 years ago, and since then you downsized considerably.
>France hasn't mustered a single deployment on that sort of scale since the Korean War
You could have talked about Algeria FFS.
>First gulf war
and since then it's been pretty much a constant deployment on that scale but split into multiple concurrent deployments, and I'm not talking about coconut duty in the Pacific.

>>32395174
>>32395213
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/operations/cartes-des-theatres-d-operation/carte-des-operations-et-missions-militaires/4301039-23-fre-FR/carte-des-operations-et-missions-militaires.jpg
Don't count the 13 000 deployed at home and oooh. Looks like it was factually right.

>>32395244

>For what it's worth, the last solo UK intervention was in 2000.

Enormously incorrect way to represent it. The UK has self deployed, self supported and self operated in 2014, 2011, 2003, 2001, 200, 1990's, 1991, 1982...

There is effectively zero countries who have been involved in a war who didn't have some other country involved in it besides themselves against their enemy in a lone long time. By the logic of "when you're the only one out doing it" is rubbish, as then basically no-one counts for the last 30 years. Just as the US self deployed, because a few allies also came doesn't mean that doesn't count.

The crucial fact that our resident over nationalist Frenchman doesn't seem to grasp is that France DIDN'T self deploy in Mali.

>>32395302
>our resident over nationalist Frenchman
Love you too.
>is that France DIDN'T self deploy in Mali
The only claim I've made was that France was the only country in Europe that could mount such an operation on such a timetable, politically and on the "force generation" matter. That it ended up depending for a good part on foreign aircrafts doesn't change that, but you fail to grasp that.

>>32395261

>Meaning France was the only one to have actually done it, and no, that's absolutely not limited to SF.

Again, please provide proof that catagorically states with agreement from the US especially, that the US and UK has never done that and that France is the only one.

You made a HUGELY broad claim, it's on you to provide proof of this, and you've shown nothing.

>in recent times.

Moving goalposts, you gave no such timescale in your original post. I'll be nice and say the last 70 years then, given your last post effectively claimed "of all time."

>Iraq is your only current deployment, with only air force assets and SF on the ground.

Except that A) It's not the only deployment and B) It's Air Force, Navy and Army, unless you think the RAF started operating Sea Kings and Infantry Brigades recently.

>It's already been established here that we have far more boots on the ground in actual operations elsewhere

You've still to provide proof of that, and have been asked for it many many times.

>Iraq was 13 years ago, and since then you downsized considerably.

Meanwhile France hasn't demonstrated that kind of deployability AT ALL since the 50's, and has also downsized significantly.

>You could have talked about Algeria FFS.

You claim that Algeria included a full spectrum task force with naval elements, at sea combat, enemy air assets in play, amphibious deployments, heavy armour, anti-air, wide area mechanised conflict and against a conventional enemy?

Remember that someone above said about French shillers misrepresenting facts? Because here it is. They aren't even vaguely comparable. Algeria was also a long long time ago, and you're the one trying to claim Iraq was too long ago to matter? Get your own arguement straight before making such retarded statements.

>>32383666
why are those turrets floating in the air. and why are they so oddly positioned? shitty arab photoshop job?

>>32395420
They're not floating in the air. Check again, you might need your eyes checked

>>32395402
>Moving goalposts, you gave no such timescale in your original post.
It was pretty much implied.
>Again, please provide proof that catagorically states with agreement from the US especially, that the US and UK has never done that and that France is the only one.
The proof to the contrary is extremely easy for you to do: when was the last time such a deployment was done on such a timetable?
>You made a HUGELY broad claim
It's actually pretty narrow.
All you have to do is find an operation done from a peacetime cold start to having an effective fighting force on the field in a similar timetable.

>You've still to provide proof of that, and have been asked for it many many times.
And it has been answered several times already. >>32395298

>Meanwhile France hasn't demonstrated that kind of deployability AT ALL since the 50's
Did you miss the first Gulf War?
>You claim that Algeria included a full spectrum task force with naval elements, at sea combat, enemy air assets in play, amphibious deployments, heavy armour, anti-air, wide area mechanised conflict and against a conventional enemy?
Look who's moving the goalposts now.

>>32395372

>The only claim I've made was that France was the only country in Europe that could mount such an operation on such a timetable, politically and on the "force generation" matter.

Which is comprehensively untrue, and you've yet to prove otherwise, especially as 16 Air Assault exists, is on permenant and is actually larger than the entire French force that did deploy to Mali. Or the Spearhead land Element, which can actually DEPLOY the initial force within 24 hours, not just get them ready, and have the main force DEPLOYED within 48.

Since you're stating "they can't do that" by saying only France has the capability, I'd like to see your proof on that.

>That it ended up depending for a good part on foreign aircrafts doesn't change that.

It kinda does. If you need allies to do your logistics for you, you are not capable of carrying out the operation yourself.

You seem unable to grasp THAT fact, and are constantly backpedalling trying to make a record out of entirely non-applicable elements.

>>32395465

>Constantly asked for proof
>Keeps ignoring what burden of proof is
>Still hasn't shown any proof at all

>Did you miss the first Gulf War?

France only deployed around 18,000 troops and was mostly kept to only airstrikes and some secondary fronts. Compared to the UK who deployed around 51,000 troops and was directly on the primary front lines.

>Look who's moving the goalposts now.

Given thats literally all you've been doing with your retarded claims that no-one in the world has ever deployed as well as France, US included apparenrtly.

>It was pretty much implied.

Backpedalling furiously.

File: EU_Defence_Deployability 2014.png (72KB, 861x603px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 861x603px

>>32395261

>Iraq was 13 years ago, and since then you downsized considerably.

OK, let's see what the European Defence Agency says about the deployable land forces of the EU member states....

Nope, UK still has more deployable troops than France.

File: 1480954631500.png (704KB, 866x807px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 866x807px

>>32395499
what the fuck happened to Poland?

>>32395468
>Which is comprehensively untrue, and you've yet to prove otherwise, especially as 16 Air Assault exists, is on permenant and is actually larger than the entire French force that did deploy to Mali. Or the Spearhead land Element, which can actually DEPLOY the initial force within 24 hours, not just get them ready, and have the main force DEPLOYED within 48.
Ignored the political side of things.

>especially as 16 Air Assault exists, is on permenant
I would be VERY surprised if the entirety of the 8000 troops were on permanent alert and not on a rotational basis.
Such a thing exists here too, you know. All the units participate on a rotational basis.

>It kinda does. If you need allies to do your logistics for you, you are not capable of carrying out the operation yourself.
You're still not considering the actual claim.

>>32395499
>2014
You've downsized since then. We've upsized.
>>32395496
>France only deployed around 18,000 troops and was mostly kept to only airstrikes and some secondary fronts. Compared to the UK who deployed around 51,000 troops and was directly on the primary front lines.
Still moving the goalposts. And we still did it, with the professional portion of our forces at a time we were still a mostly conscript force with already a large number of concurrent foreign deployments.
>Given thats literally all you've been doing with your retarded claims that no-one in the world has ever deployed as well as France, US included apparenrtly.
Except no, that's not what I said. And technically, the US were too surprised at how fast the Mali deployment was organised.
>Backpedalling furiously.
>If I constantly misinterpret what he says for what I think he is saying, then I win
Getting tired of this shit.

File: 1317027089_mc1.jpg (135KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x960px

>>32383676

>Итaк, вaш apгyмeнт, T-80 и T-90 \ 90A coвpeмeнный тoжe?

They will be subjected to modernization

>>32395598

>You've downsized since then. We've upsized.

Uh huh, another un-sourced French claim.

Why not have a look at military budget changes according to NATO

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

French military spending in millions of 2010 USD (Table 2):

2009: 52,465
2010: 51,971
2011: 50,439
2012: 50,721
2013: 50,721
2014: 50,173
2015: 49,563
2016: 49,880

So even with a slight increase in spending in 2016 compared to 2015, France is still spending less on its military than in 2014. Also, considering how many French troops are tied up with Operation Sentinelle this year, wasting money as well as time they could be spending training or at high readiness, I doubt 2016 is an improvement on 2015.

>>32395298
>Don't count the 13 000 deployed at home and oooh. Looks like it was factually right.
>>32395465

Jesus Christ. You are quite something.

I AM ASKING FOR THE SOURCE ON THE BRITISH NUMBERS COMPARED TO THE FRENCH ONES

HOW HARD IS IT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS

>>32395893
British MoD via BBC. Link is somewhere around here and has been quoted several times.
>>32395743
>Uh huh, another un-sourced French claim.
I must have imagined every regiment getting a fifth combat company then. Or the recruitment targets going abruptly from 10 000 to 15 000 a year.
You're like the fucking proofster.
>French military spending in millions of 2010 USD (Table 2):
Those numbers are absolutely meaningless by themselves, you know that? Equipment programs arrive at maturation, leading to a decrease in equipment spendings, and you have no idea how much of all the budget is allotted to the armed forces proper. And then there's this.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/12/21/01016-20161221ARTFIG00027-le-chef-d-etat-major-des-armees-veut-un-budget-de-la-defense-a-2-du-pib.php

>>32396156

That only gave numbers for 10 deployments, not the 70 others.

Again, we have to drag anything solid out of you.

>>32396184
>not the 70 others
Because considering the nature of the 70 others, you can hardly consider them deployment at all, unless you count a liaison team in an embassy as a proper deployment.
At the most, I would consider those 70 "deployments" to represent ~1500 personnel.
The article doesn't bother to cite deployments with less than 70 people, and the rest concerns "Other overseas deployments include training, exchanges and loans to armed forces in various different countries such as Canada and Brunei."

>>32396333
>and the rest concerns "Other overseas deployments include training, exchanges and loans to armed forces in various different countries such as Canada and Brunei."
And we do have our share of those, except we don't consider them deployments.

>>32396156

>I must have imagined every regiment getting a fifth combat company then. Or the recruitment targets going abruptly from 10 000 to 15 000 a year.

If you looked at that .PDF you would have seen that the number of French active military personnel declined over that period of time, and was the same for both 2014 & 2015 (Table 5).

>You're like the fucking proofster.

Asserting that the deployable French armed forces had increased while the British had decreased without any sources is, not something you can proofster your way out of, Anon.

>Those numbers are absolutely meaningless by themselves, you know that? Equipment programs arrive at maturation, leading to a decrease in equipment spendings, and you have no idea how much of all the budget is allotted to the armed forces proper.

Did you even look at that .PDF at all? If you looked at the distribution of military spending over the past few years, you would see that personnel costs have been around ~48% (Table 6a).

>http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/12/21/01016-20161221ARTFIG00027-le-chef-d-etat-major-des-armees-veut-un-budget-de-la-defense-a-2-du-pib.php

So, France aims to increase its budget top 2% of GDP by 2025, okay, but that isn't exactly now, or even imminent, and even then, investment must be sustained for a period of time. Spending that much for a single year doesn't make up for a decade of underinvestment instantly.

>>32396333

I keep saying it, but you're a real something. But nice work on selective quoting.

Again, you are yet to provide any real numbers on how many British personal you believe that are deployed/oversea compared to French.

>Hundreds of British armed forces personnel are also based in other countries for small-scale deployments which are often short-term or in response to emergency situations.

>In Nigeria, British troops are training domestic forces to "improve security and combat Boko Haram"; while in Somalia 70 personnel are helping UN peacekeeping efforts and combating Islamist militant groups like al-Shabab.

>British military personnel are also involved in a number of aid efforts around the world, for example in Nepal and Sierra Leone.

>>32396184
List of current large scale irregular (IE not usually a deployable place) deployments to other nations (battallion or regiment at least):
> USA
> Estonia
> Latvia
> Lithuania (OMG this bird in my platoons parents are lithuanian, she has massive knockers.)
> worst Korea
> Ukraine (Vanguard platoon, MI is said to have had a role in the killing of Motorola, their COs friend, a Crimean ukrainian loyalist supposedly did it)
>Various UN and NATO shit that you get a medal for and throw in the bin as soon as you get it.

The UK has various other military objectives (IE outcomes) and missions (diplomacy).
Objectives include
south africa
South african-Zimbabwean border
Columbia
Qatar
Objectives will have the high number of 70.
Missions will have nominally 30 for training, guarding and diplomacy. Usually in addition to at least 8 "attaches" who are MI/ whatever.

From what i recall Columbia has a full 2 platoons of security, 8 attaches and 2 "contract managers" who act as foremen for PMCs which are said to number an additional 90 staff.

I'd say at least 10,000 in all outside that. But most are "attaches" doing super secret squirrel stuff

>>32396493

The original point was number of oversea military personal, not necessarily a deployment "deployment".

File: get back here bitch nigga.jpg (166KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 500x400px

>>32396156
>Leaving the maintenance hangar now counts as a deployment
>British cucks in charge of not being cowards

>>32396507
Yes. they are not deployments, more like postings.
anyway we've committed to postings in estonia, lithuania and latvia.
I neglected to mention poland, singapore, and Malaysia,

>>32396530
TFW walking around helmand for a total time of 4 and a half years, we always heard ferocious firefights over the radio, but never saw one outside the wire. not once.

>>32396564
>>32396530
Americans that is. ran into the croat contingent twice and never an american unit.
no wonder they were slashing 80% of all confirmed kills off reports for septics

>>32396581
maybe because they were off engaging the enemy instead of fucking around wandering into friendly units